Craig A. Major and Patrice R. Major VS Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury and The Parish of Pointe Coupee
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2007 CA 0666 J c CRAIG A MAJOR AND PATRICE R MAJOR VERSUS j r1 u 71 POINTE COUPEE PARISH POLICE JURY AND THE PARISH OF POINTE COUPEE Judgment Rendered On Appeal December 21 2007 from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Point Coupee State of Louisiana Trial Court No 39 989 Honorable Hon J Robin Free Attorneys for Plaintiffs Appellants Craig A Major and Patrice R Major David M Cohn D Brian Cohn Baton Rouge LA Leo C Hamilton John M Madison III Baton Rouge Judge Presiding LA BEFORE Attorneys for Defendants Appellees Pointe Coupee Parish Police Jury and the Parish of Pointe Coupee CARTER C J PETTIGREW AND WELCH JJ CARTER C J This appeal challenges exception raising trial court on the trial 10 2007 Major and Patrice held that R 8 November prohibited for 2005 Coupee appeal purposes in to a and the Parish of Pointe against plaintiffs Craig Essentially the trial Majors state the The a of cause action Resolution cause in their trailer no error Based utilizing 3 2 05 the in the trial court on our de novo s as jurisdiction 2d So 1113 review of the trial court 1122 1123 final for trial court erred supplemental and amending taking of their reasons we taking celiification ofthe Inc v conclude that the properly invoked remaining discrimination elements of the unconstitutional Therefore Messinger s ofthis court has been between the elements of the in we judgment the factors set forth in RJ 894 parks being created property that OCCUlTed without compensation For the following find a Resolution judgment of action for the unconstitutional their for The Majors appeal maintaining that the court passage of s FEMA The trial court certified the allegations in favor of was of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita from consider that the stated petition Jury and Emergency Management Agency Parish 1 failing Resolution evacuees Pointe to ruling s claim associated with the Parish taking Federal displaced the failed unconstitutional Police court the Parish as Major Majors the judgment sustaining a peremptory The trial Coupee Parish Coupee collectively referred to A court objection of a partial no cause of action rendered by the January Pointe defendants a claim the Rosenblum designation There is and no judgment by 04 1664 La is proper and that direct relationship negligence claims and the all separate and distinct claims the evidence necessary for trial of the These are partial judgment narrowed remaining Although there is a slight possibility that we may be obliged to consider the unconstitutional taking issue again in connection with the consolidated actions that are not before us in this appeal each factual scenario is different and would not necessarily have the san1e result Thus that factor alone is not sufficient to void the issues We find that the need for review of this issue at this time best serves the interests ofthe litigants as well as the concem for judicial efficiency and economy celiification 2 BACKGROUND The Pointe Majors the State of Louisiana in negotiate to interested in FEMA also for a creating expressed FEMA trailer Resolution of rural land located in acres August and September sale of their a 839 After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated parts of Parish Coupee approximately own FEMA trailer a an interest in the an of out park on Majors attempted purchaser who state the property Majors property After the Parish parle prohibiting to property 2005 the passed the creation of FEMA trailer as a Allegedly potential site the November 2005 parks within Pointe Coupee Parish the prospective purchaser of the Majors property longer in interested in pursuing the placement evacuees On the sale and FEMA negotiating of any trailer 11 May 2006 the Resolution and unconstitutional The Parish claiming Parish a housing hurricane the first petition against the Parish s passage of a alleging discriminatory Resolution amounted to an regulatory taking of their property without compensation allegations and an filing as to answer a to file an amended regulatory taking supplemental the taking claim paragraphs alleging petition claim and denying the negligence and peremptory exception raising the The trial court sustained the Parish opportunity a negligent s that the obj ection of no cause of action filed for interested longer the enforcement of the Resolution responded by filing discrimination filed Majors damages resulting from the Parish regarding was no was no anywhere within Pointe Coupee Parish seeking injunctive relief against an parks was s exception but gave the in order to state On October 17 amending petition that after the hurricanes a cause 2006 adding their property Maj ors of action the Majors additional was more valuable than Fmiher the at any other time but that Majors alleged eliminated the major pOliion by filing renewed peremptory property use exception raising that their was practical Majors and exception thereby a partial taking of their had not alleged otherwise restricted the property still had value and other than uses as a FEMA trailer park the trial comi ruled in favor of the Parish held 2 responded objection of in law for the unconstitutional remedy a property could have The Parish the park of the Resolution of their propeliy value s FEMA trailer passage The Parish maintained that because the property was s as a arguing that the Majors still had not alleged any facts that of action afforded them the Parish of their a no cause utilized significant and practical most destroying a only if dismissing the After hearing a again sustaining The Majors regulatory taking claim the Majors appealed DISCUSSION The amended narrow petition claim for an issue states a cause unconstitutional on cause exception of action is defined to judicially DeCaire 03 1299 Supreme Comi 2 The Insurance Majors Company as to proceed to La recently 19 3 action 04 outlined against 869 law the defendants defendant in the first 4 118 pertaining also named the insurer for the Parish as a supplemental us to of the peremptory rise to the give So 2d 114 the requires validity context facts that operative asseli the Majors Parish such that their trial This issue when used in the the whether the IS against the the effect of the Resolution rather than its A right of action case regulatory taking of their propeliy without compensation should be allowed focus in this presented plaintiff s Ramey v The Louisiana to peremptory St Paul Fire and Marine and amending petition exceptions raIsmg the objection of Southwest Computer Bureau 1211 as 1217 cause no Inc 05 0612 of action in Badeaux La 06 17 3 v So 2d 929 follows exception of no cause of action questions whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition The exception is triable on A n the face of the petition and to determine the issues raised by the exception each well pleaded fact in the petition must be In reviewing a district court s ruling accepted as true sustaining an exception of no cause of action appellate courts conduct a de novo review because the exception raises a question of law and the district court s decision is based only on the sufficiency of the petition An exception of no cause of action should be granted only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to relief If the petition states a the cause of action on any ground or portion of the demand Every reasonable exception should generally be overruled interpretation must be accorded the language used in the petition in favor of maintaining its sufficiency and affording the plaintiff the opportunity of presenting evidence at trial Citations omitted No evidence may be introduced to of no cause of action is whether case relief for on their unconstitutional without LSA C C P the face of the claim that regulatory taking compensation under the Constitution and AIiicle I a the S mere conclusions case in the or controvert petition the Majors Parish Resolution s of their are propeliy for exception legally entitled amounted public a to and applying the not necessary petition Ramey for a Louisiana has plaintiff to plead 869 So 2d at 118 facts do not set forth legal principles Majors amended petition fails to an purpose a cause However of action Accepting all of the allegations in the Majors amended petition true to Fifth Amendment of the United States 4 of the Louisiana Constitution unsupported by an the issue in this Consequently 931 art system of fact pleading therefore it is the theory of the support as allege 5 set forth above we Id as find that the facts sufficient to state a cause of action for that a they had trailer park contract a Majors allegations of fact do prior parks to the passage of the Parish in Pointe demonstrate that the Resolution not portion of the property value Further the impracticable for are passed they unnamed park Majors do not in effect Majors that any other or for the purpose of probability do that establish not suffice Through Dept of Social Services 3090 La 9 9 97 use was of their Majors property creating to some FEMA trailer a or unsupported See Todd v State Services 96 699 So 2d 35 43 A regulatory taking major portion of the La I App Mandeville 0268 La Cir La 3 25 94 App 9 23 97 value 700 610 or government regulation destroys eliminates the So 2d La 635 So 2d 234 1 Cir 1987 owner s when the Community Standard Materials Inc 633 So 2d 608 unconstitutional the property of the propeliy uses occurs Office of major that had the Resolution of action a cause do nothing of the Rather only possibility speculation to establish a property potential would have been able to sell their potential purchaser Pleadings speculation based upon pure with sale of their allege that the any other purpose allegations of fact not been leave the to foreclosed because of the Resolution was property as allegations diminished the value of so FEMA a Resolution that s The Coupee Parish show not for the sale of their property in order that could be built FEMA trailer prohibited The regulatory taking v 975 App Annison City 984 v Layne Hoover 517 So 2d 420 to develop it Standard Materials 700 So 2d to at 984 6 result 94 423 However merely its maximum economic State of City v writ denied writ denied 519 So 2d 148 La 1988 not economic of Slidell 96 0684 1 Cir 1993 taking of private property does is unable practical a an because potential Dept of Social Services v 1757 City of New Orleans 95 154 96 2143 writ denied regulation deprives without compensation will See also Layne v City While allow the we property if it owner 683 of all 676 So 2d 149 So 2d 278 practical use the Only if of his propeliy taking have occurred that the Resolution at issue in this be the maximum economic developed as find that the Resolution we expense to 11 8 96 unconstitutional an to achieve were 4 Cir 5 29 96 App Id of Mandeville 633 So 2d at 610 recognize Majors La propeliy a La applied as the to for their potential FEMA trailer a may not case at FEMA park Majors does s not substantially reduce the economic value of their propeliy and its potential utility other the The possibility housing development development is still viable their property a a to an Thus the or their creating on the Majors have not oppOliunities to propeliy trailer to the park or s developing propeliy La Authority 4 L Ed 2d 1186 Condominium App sell 4 Cir 1992 v not a They to have realize then other only purchaser City one as a is for uses profit been denied to create a or FEMA a lost See United States 236 taking long if they had sold their going taking 229 a as lease their property for was 363 U S Likewise some or some possibility of speculative economic gain does not amount to Development or The denial of 1960 park deprived of all practical or who purchaser prospective business oppOliunity is 1139 been Resolution The frustration of Grand River Dam trailer Likewise the park profit that they expected out of state or Majors property is still viable out of state investor consequence of the Parish possible income mobile home a FEMA trailer not selling the property as of 80 S Ct avenue 1134 of v 1138 selling or See Lakeshore Harbor of New Orleans 603 So 2d 192 196 the reduction in the value of property 7 when considering taking Andrus 210 v a cause a Allard possible 444 U S uses 51 is not 66 necessarily equated 100 S Ct 318 327 with a 62 L Ed 2d 1979 Accordingly the of its one of action for Majors hold that the we an Majors unconstitutional petition to developing The Resolution did not their FEMA trailer the as a or that all result of the Majors from selling or property it simply prohibited the possible development of a park on leave to amend their So 2d at 1219 prohibit We also find that destroyed practical utility of their property has been eliminated Resolution does not state establish such facts that value has been s petition regulatory taking will not be able to amend their major portion of their property amended their Thus the property petition See LSA C C P Majors art need not be 934 given Badeaux 929 869 So 2d at 119 120 Ramey DECREE For the reasons sustaining the Parish patiial no cause discussed the s January 10 2007 trial court judgment peremptory exception raising the objection of of action is affirmed All costs of this by plaintiffs appellants Craig A Major AFFIRMED 8 and Patrice R appeal Major are to be a paid
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
